First, “congrats” to the partners who got their Provisional Authorities (P.A.) already! You are now legit and you can now ply the roads without worry ;P

If you want to check if your TNVS Application is approved, you can see the results here. If you want to track the status of your application, Uber is now implementing their online TNVS tracker. If you need help and guidance for your TNVS application, just refer to our guide and FAQs.

Being accredited with LTFRB means that we’re now subject to their rules and regulations. And speaking of regulations, did you know that there’s a new Memorandum (M.C. 2015-025) that requires TNVS (vehicles with Uber, Grab and other TNCs) to put “markings” OUTSIDE and “display” INSIDE their vehicle while on a pre-arranged trip in addition to the required trade dress. A photo of M.C. 2015-025 is shown below.This memorandum is actually an amendment to previous memoranda (M.C. 2005-006 and M.C. 2012-008) that requires “markings” for all public utility vehicles to prevent/minimize abuses of public utility drivers. This (supposedly) encourages the commuting public to report erring and abusive drivers in order to maintain safe, convenient, and comfortable public land transportation.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: We clarified this with LTFRB, the markings on the upper rear windshield and both sides are OUTSIDE the vehicle. But this can be removable. We suggest, you can have customized refrigerator magnets, you know, like those they usually giveaway as event souvenirs.

3. According to Section 5, ALL PUVs INCLUDING TNVS, should display INSIDE the vehicle the details below. As to what display should we put INSIDE the vehicle, LTFRB said TNVS MAY USE laminated notice, a sticker, a magnetic removable display, etc for as long as it’s inside and it contains the info prescribed. THEREFORE, no need to paint the interiors. 😉

Vehicle Plate Number
LTFRB 24/7 Hotline
Operator’s Number
Notice on the grant of 20% fare discount to senior citizen, PWD and student.

4. If you applied for an authority to operate from Central Office or NCR, you have 60 days to comply after you’ve been issued the authority to operate. If you applied for an authority to operate from Regional Office, you’re given 90 days to comply after you’ve been issued the authority to operate. So, if you already have authority to operate, you need to comply ON or BEFORE December 29, 2015.

THEREFORE, we think if we don’t have authority to operate= CPC Franchise yet, no need for the markings YET.

We’ll clarify this with LTFRB, watch out for their response.

We get and share the intention of putting up these markings. If need be, of course, we will comply. We just hope that authorities does not miss the point and defeat the purpose of ridesharing. We hope Uber Philippines (and GrabCar Philippines) weigh in on this matter.

What do you partners think about this Memorandum? If you have other questions or clarifications, comment them below and we’ll clarify them for you direct from LTFRB’s office.

Want to be an Uber Partner?

You might also like...

211 Comments

Iam Buenavidez
on November 12, 2015 at 9:50 pm

If my car will have “markings” outside the vehicle, then it will be the end for me as Uber partner operator… LTFRB’s hotline numbers are useless.

I feel same as the comment above.. what happen to during spare time to earn extra money.. putting marking on our car which we use privately is disgusting. we are just sharing the use of our car.. Utak matuwas na daan..

I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the UBER operators like me will not
continue. Also with most of the UBER riders wouldn’t like this. They prefer of
course to ride with a hired vehicle without markings, as they feel more safe and
confident and there is some degree of prestige in such.

What is No.3 in the article which says: ” All PUVs except TNVS ( during pre-arrange ride ) shall also indicate…”?
I think it simply says that TNVS are not part of the OUTSIDE markings, isn’t it?

Further in No. 4, ” All PUVs including TNVS ( during pre-arrange ride ) shall be required to paint/display the following information INSIDE the car “.

Logically, TNVS are not totally PUVs though they may serve public but they have the option to when to serve or not since they are really private vehicles. So removable marking maybe valid ONLY WHEN IN PUBLIC SERVICE.

Please raise an appeal with LTFRB, in order to fight for the right of UBER partners. Otherwise, business will be lost.

I believe No.3 means TNVS don’t need to put the “maximum number of passengers” only. Markings OUTSIDE are still required please read No. 2 and 1.b 🙂
Then read LTFRB’s response to our question if the markimgs for sedans are INSIDE or OUTSIDE

Item no. 2 indicates “DURING PRE-ARRANGED TRIP”, does it mean that markings OUTSIDE are also removable? How can we put removable markings outside the vehicle, kindly give us an idea?

admin
on November 14, 2015 at 3:21 pm

We’re looking into magnetic signages much like what those refrigerator magnet souvenirs. That’s UberMNLTips’ hack for this. 😉

Sandra tandoc
on November 25, 2015 at 10:10 pm

If ltfrb is after the safety of the riding public, in response to their memo.this is all bullshit.the riders are perfectly comfortable with the information their getting from uber apps. Plate #,drivers name, etc..etc. the truth is gusto talaga nilang patayin ang uber at grab.,after this I won’t be surprised pag may bago uling requirements ang ltfrb.were not idiots not to understand all of this….

This was similar to the case of the UV express services before which initially started as a Garage Service until it became Vehicle for Hire and now became UV Express Service where they eventually required all vehicles to get a franchise.
You also have to pay at least 100,000 php for the franchise alone and will be required to get all those markings on your vehicle otherwise, huhulihin ka nila madalas if you don’t comply.
We already have an active account with UBER and is now working on the vehicle to use, however, assessing on this issue, I am now having second thoughts in continuing our partnership with UBER or this business in general.
This is another corrupt initiative of the government which not beneficial for everyone.
It clearly supersedes the TNVS purpose, I hope Uber will do something about it before it’s too late.

If it is removable it is ok Like what you said magnetic like in ref. And we ate not like puj and taxi we are private cars, and those ltfrb markings are useless try to contact those no. Nobody will answer .

I èxpected that much from a regulating agency that seems so highly deregulated. Where in the world would you see a hundred or so bus franchises running the city’s main hi-way with all their terminals right dead center?

The memo is a little confusing. One says that there should be markings outside while another says inside. Do we have to do both? If there will be permanent markings placed outside of my car,it’s uberoff.
Also, why is ltfrb promoting a hotline that doesn’t work? Uber responds way faster than them . You can’t even get a hold of someone nor can get their hotline ring.
Thanks.

So frustrating. I’m a qualified marine instructor. I bought a new car (top if the line) because u want to drive and earn money to pay my monthly amortuzation. I had already had two cars but older than 2012. I love my new car. I think this is not a good idea to have private cars marjed with useless ltfrb nos. Then i will be same level with nitmal taxi drivers.
Whats the use of having tnvs. If uber drivers do not behave it’s up to uber to give them penalty or deactivate their account.
As for myself i cannot misbegave myself since my car is hulugan.

I agree to the comment of one uber partner if the markings are for inside only. Magmumukhang taxi na ang uber pag nilagyan ng markings sa labas. Besides transactions were being done nman privately. Dun nman sa markings s back windshield ok lng din nman as long as its also removable. We can use friction sticker for this. Pero yung permanent marking outside… It’s a NO! NO! Ubers should still be considered as PRIVATE CAR. Uber management should take their stand on this. Compromise eka nga.

Kalokohan. The business itself isn’t profitable anymore, then we have to deal with ltfrb requirements that go against the very core of ride-sharing. Model works in the states but here in pinas where most partners have a driver (with a 60-40 split), wala nang kita. Tapos lalagyan pa ngayon ng markings. Ayawan na.

What is Uber management gonna do about it? Will you protect us from this nonsense? What are markings for? We are only visible online don’t they know that? what is this? Are they trying to make themselves look authoritative? They can’t even regulate the service of jeepneys and taxis all these years! Has anything improved while they “regulated ” the transport franchise business? The quality of the service suffered through the years and they never took action to improve on it. Or maybe that’s not part of their job? Their job is simply to collect? now all of a sudden they will impose markings on uber cars? I wanna be proven wrong because I think the idea is nonsense. Let them explain the virtue of markings and show us it’s not a stupid idea. Meanwhile, Uber management, please don’t let them impose things just because they are a government institution. uber is redefining the transport system, using the latest technology. This is an improvement to an industry that they have left rotting. Now they want to impose nonsense? Please don’t let this happen.

I agree with you Mr. Gutierrez. They can’t even regulate anything like jeeps, buses, taxis, even tricycles. So this time, they’d like to have their hands on Uber so they can make a mess out of it like the way they messed up the other transportation groups and got buckets of money out of it into their own pockets.

Please enlighten me with regards on the markings on the rear windshield? Does it mean 3 markings? ( one at upper) rear windshield and the other two will be at the rear window of the car? If this is removable, I understand that Uber suggested to make customized just like from ref magnets, I didn’t get this one because magnets will not stick in glass (windows/windshield), what do you call that kind of magnets that you are suggesting. what is the specific name of it?

I hope abiding by the rules, we can also pick up passenger from the airport because we are no difference from other white/yellow taxis with all these marking, the essence of the private car was long gone. PLEASE FIGHT FOR IT UBER!!

Please also enlighten me with the 20% discount for senior citizen and student, does it mean the credit card owner should be the senior citizen/student to avail the discount? What if the person who queue for a ride is a senior citizen/student but the rider , he or she queued for is not a senior citizen or a student?

I think we should be united to oppose on that matter. Uber should take a huge step to stop ltfrb in treating us as puv, we are just trying to help the rider to have a choice on our freetime. In uber, strict implementation of a 5 star service to the rider are closely monitor 24/7. Now, The uber, the uber partner and the uber riders should act as one to opposed the gov’t .

I don’t think our riders will like our cars plastered with these signs.
Half the reason the public are using Uber is because they don’t like taxis.
My riders have told me, they like turning up to an event or party in a nice vehicle.
They want like our cars plastered with advertising.
Also they like that its private, meaning that no one knows their in a vehicle their paying a fare on, another reason they don’t like cab. Especially in the city…

What’s your response and your plans about this admin? You should be firm on your stand that that’s not how the uber business operate and work. Please protect the uber partners or else these business will die. The customers should contact the uber if they have any concerns regarding their trip or uber partner not the ltfrb. Because Uber should be the middle man between the customers and ltfrb. The ltfrb should understand and respect how this business work and uber should not let the ltfrb dictate them on what to do, what rules should be implemented even manipulating and changing the uber’s own rules and regulations. Remember, we are using private vehicles here. If you don’t protect this business and your partners, better change the name from uber mnl to LTFRB MNL.

I’m sorry uber if this will happen its a GOODBYE. UBER is worldwide and i tried uber in other country and its a private car as it ses and we promise riders! NO MARKINGS AT ALL! first of all its a private car why the heck will we put markings on our private cars! KA CHEAPAN NG PILIPINAS!!! 2nd do you think the passengers would like to ride in a private service with MARKINGS like taxi? especially in such events? 5 STAR HOTEL PICK UP SERVICE? HAHA EEEEWWWW! UBER, i think you’re the only one who could deal with our stupid corrupt government and i say if you don’t want to loose partners then make a way not to let this happen or else GOODBYE! i say BANKRUPT on your side. FOR US, we can still put our cars into RENT A CAR. not as much earning as like we have in uber but BETTER compare to BABUYAN MODE! so please UBER as a PARTNER please deal as much as you can not to let this happen. THANK YOU and that’s my disappointed and pissed opinion.

common! remember riders told that they choose to ride us because our cars is neat in and out? then we are gong to put markings on them ? eh d hindi n private and feel ng ride mo d b? thats a big no no no nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As an UBER rider, I totally disagree with this stupid idea of LTFRB. I understand that Uber is considered as PUV. However, there’s a big difference between a taxi, jeepney, buses or whatnot as PUVs compared to a private car servicing in public. And that’s what sets Uber and GrabCar apart from the regular PUVs. Uber and Grab have elevated and revolutionized the transportation here in the Philippines and that’s the reason why riders choose this ride sharing apps as part of their lives on a daily basis because of its image and the satisfactory service. Putting such trash on a private vehicle is totally ridiculous as this defeats the sole purpose of the business and its private image. UBER, you might want to hear out your UBER-Peers and UBER riders. Make an appeal to LTFRB. Don’t you have a word on this? This kind of situation jeopardizes not only your image but as well as your profit.
Someone should learn to speak up for once and oppose such process that is not favorable for both entrepreneurs and clients. We can only see two paths which is very apparent. It’s either amendments or loss of business.

We don’t need the markings whether those are inside or outside our vehicles. Uber covers all transactions online. We always have a reference by going to our uber accounts. Besides, uber has a system of rating drivers and escalating other concerns. Our system is way better than our crocs in the govt. I have faith in uber management. If we need to work with other groups such as grab, please feel free to do so. Just us let us know. – Concerned Uber Partner

This is another ridiculous provision by LTFRB. May utak ba mga tao doon? Kaya nga ride sharing e. Riders already know that they are safe even without those shitty markings that when you try and text or call those numbers no one even answers. It’s a useless marking. Also, we are private cars that’s why we joined Uber. We’d like to have our cars to look as private as possible. And Uber riders like that especially.

I do hope that the voices of Uber Partners and Uber Riders ( I’m a rider myself who joined Uber as a partner) be heard through you, Uber or Grab. This is too much. We gave a hand, now they want the whole arm.

does UBER or GRAB has challenged the action of LTFRB, legally? because the purpose and objective of the memorandum is to protect the riding public. the big question is “Which gives more protection to the riders, the markings or the system of the UBER AND GRAB?” under the current system UBER AND GRAB gives more protection than the “MARKINGS”. the markings does not even work as intended, in most cases markings are ignored by the riders. with UBER OR GRAB the riders could easily recall all information by the driver and the car through the system of the UBER OR GRAB.

These numbers are useless. nobody ever calls to complain bec everyone knows it’s a waste of time. Uber and Grab does a great job already policing its people so why bother. This is the end of ride-sharing.

Can uber instead propose they setup hotline which will autimatically notify concerned govt (altho oximoronic to think if govt is really concerned like those ltfrb hotline that diesnt work accdg to the experience as said by people here)
The TNVS registration under the name of the orcr holder is right.
And the removable markings inside which should be available for riders is not too bad

Uber needs to act on this. We will lose a large number of passengers who wants the prestige of riding Uber instead of taxi, furthermore, as a partner I will only get the cheapest line of cars for use on Uber so that’s ba was points for Uber.

1. The very reason why Uber became a hit is because it is safe and secure for both drivers and riders. THAT SAFETY IS SOMETHING NO LTFRB MARKING/HOTLINE CAN OFFER AS EVIDENT IN THE CURRENT TAXI SITUATION. So putting those has no point. Let the LFTRB be aware that if riders have complaints, they report straight to Uber and Uber responds very promptly that the day will not end without getting an action. I doubt LTFRB can provide such quick response. Yes! People has no faith in your abilities. So unless you can convince a majority of uber riders AND drivers that those markings are EFFECTIVE and NECESSARY, let the people, who you supposedly serve, provide for our own safety.
2. Not all Uber vehicles are operating full-time. You do not want your Fortuner or Montero vandalized right? Think!
3. Transportation has changed. Do not pull it back in a rut. Your standards do not apply here because your standards have been proven to be useless!

Good day..it’s frustrating to read all of these comments. I wouldn’t consider myself an operator until my TNVS application has been approved by LTFRB yet, but if I may say that with their current ruling will somehow might lead to putting yellow plates on Uber vehicles. What would hinder them to implement this? I could only say “that’s life in the Phillipines!”

TNVS should not be considered as public transportation because it does not serve majority of the public but only for those who have credit cards or shall we say middle class riders wherein they can’t afford to put their safety and security at risks. Riders safety is at stake here especially that the public is not assured of their safety. Government should focus on safety & security of their constituents. About the markings, there’s no need to have it on TNVS because Uber app itself has that information and all riders has the copy of the plate no of the car, profile of the driver, trip history and etc..so what’s the purpose of that markings?

Persons with disabilities like me are the ones who benefit most from
this transportation service from Uber, it makes us feel safe and free from arrogant taxi drivers who sometimes refuse to take us in. As far as identifying the vehicles as
uber rides, this would actually expose us, i.e. that we are travelling alone and easy
prey to hold uppers and robbers. An incident happened to me once inside a taxi when someone tried to open my door by inserting his hand inside the window of the driver and the driver did not do anything! Whereas, if inside a private car, I feel
safer that people do not know that I travel by myself. I hope LTFRB Chairman Gines would reconsider this Memo circular.

I can understand why no Uber driver would want their private car to have painted writing on the body itself. I don’t think LTRFB would accept magnetic plates because they could easily fall off or be removed by people outside the car. The only solution I can think of is some kind of plate attached to the car with screws which doesn’t damage the bodywork itself. The plate could be removed without leaving ugly marks when the vehicle is used privately.

having magnetic magnetic sheet would not be practical. At first maybe, but on in the long run. Magnetic sheets are not cheap. street kids can easily peel them off and run away with it.

I just called their “hotline” numbers…. and guess what? it rings once then goes busy…

Personally, trying to impose something that does not work is plain stupidity. Based on the memorandum, the markings are intended to prevent or minimize abusive drivers. I strongly believe that UBER already has this in covered through the UBER app and rider-driver rating / feedback system, which I find more efficient that LTFRB’s markings (which, again, DOES NOT WORK!!!)

Personally this negates the fact that UBER was created for licensed private cars to be accessible for commuters. It was meant for the safety of the passengers and convenience of its partners. This ruling just seems a little off-putting because it indirectly suggests that LFTRB will slowly penetrate this market forprofit purposes of sorts. Hope UBER can find a fix for this not to continue.

A big NO!!!!!! Reason why we are riding UBER is because we want to feel that we are riding on a private car. UBER is more reliable in handling the complaints of the rider compared to texting or calling LTFRB. I had an experience before that my issue was not address because I need to attend the hearing. Please wag nyo po hayaan na lagyan nila kayo ng marks.

I would say No, because the markings only applies to public vehicles while Uber cars are still owned by private individuals so they have the right to say no to it. If the goal is to ask riders about their driving experience, they should review the Information Architecture/Structure of the Uber App. There’s a scenario where every rider needs to rate every ride they booked, this is the same thing with “How’s my driving” marking on the puvs just presented in a different way. I am a designer myself, it’s important to know the message being delivered but also present it in different ways.

I think it’s another way for the LTFRB to make money, abusive of their power to regulate such rules even when the rules are not being implemented to the sectors that falls into the right category.

What’s wrong with these guys…it makes no sense to me, Uber is a ride sharing mode of transpo….all info on the car and driver is readily available on the cellphone of the riders, so why need to plaster a good looking car with all those non-sense useless ltfrb hotline numbers…to ltfrb think tanks, why fix it if it aint broke?….just focus on those damn taxi drivers who drive cabs with huge markings that rob and rape hapless passengers…just telling the truth men.

i think you got it wrong. this memo was applied to existing “PUV’s” a couple of years ago and only implemented strictly now. here in marikina city sticker makers and printers had their fill lately of clients e.g. shuttle, fx, taxi and more. in my opinion sec 1b is for existing PUV’s and not us TNVS.
We are included in Section 2 however this is not permanent its the “trade dress” w/c is mentioned in TNVS memo i think in 2015 -017?..(forgot).. the trade dress is the Uber logo being displayed by drivers like in the states and london during “pre arranged rides”.. it can also be obtained thru Momentum Magazine..its Ubers new publication designed specifically for Uber Partners. https://newsroom.uber.com/2015/03/introducing-momentum-magazine/ .. i believe the markings like LTFRB..fares and etc. will only be added to this logo “trade dress”.. and not on the vehicle. Riders like riding unmarked vehicles maybe for privacy, safety or just plain…RIDESHARING

hi ka-ubers
i’ve been a partner driver since August of 2014. We had our share of the ups and downs of being a partner..met fellow would be and excited partners at Sunlife financial bldg (former uber office) and was manned by only 3 personnels like Mikel, Laurence and forgot her name. There were only a few of us like 15 persons attending the onboardings, actual vehicle inspection and IPad issuance..i also saw some of the fellow partners who gave up and have their vehicles repossess due to incentives where stopped without any notice, we where then making trips. for almost 3 months with fares lower than that of taxicabs. It was a test of enduring the hardship… now with all that we experienced and achieved.. overcoming obstacles suddenly our operation is almost legal… my point is let us share news ideas and opinions in a careful, well studied and responsible manner and not start an issue that will bring anxiety and negative thoughts… Lets have a positive disposition on things that matter to us as partners/drivers…this is the future of the transportation sector..Mobility as a Service..Rideshare thru relays.. the right to choose.. shake the transport sector by abolishing the Boundary system. let ordinary drivers be their own boss too and Your Car U Drive…just sharing my opinion ka-ubers.

I dont think this is good for us partner operator. We are private vehicles who just wanted to help people to bring them safely to where they are going to. These markings or numbers of LTFRB are useless. You try to call them up, nobody is answering. How can they say that the public is safe if you cannot reach them during emergencies?

Uber operates in more developed nations. If we like to become a developed nation, let’s just follow their example. Why should we be different? It’s our government that needs to improve, not Uber, I don’t think Uber is the one that has corruption, incompetence, and inefficiency issues.

A big NO on the LTFRB markings. Rider’s are safe already with Uber rides. Driver and rider can rate each other using Uber Ap. Numbers of LTFRB are useless. Try to call them up… always busy. Or you may include the LTFRB numbers in Uber Ap so it will become visible to riders.

I disagree on LTFRB’s ruling re:markings. For one, TNVS should not to be categorized as PUVs because TNVS are private vehicles accredited to a TNC for public use but not on a fulltime basis they are still primarily PRIVATE VEHICLES. Thus, I think TNVS are accountable to TNCs where they are accredited and TNCs are accountable to LTFRB. Following that order of accountability, TNCs should propose & submit guidelines to LTFRB on how they will police TNVS for the protection of the riding public, and these guidelines should not include markings as a requirement in consideration to private vehicle owners. So, I suggest that TNCs need to have a talk with LTFRB re:markings & other similar concerns to differentiate PUVs from TNVS. Currently, TNCs are doing a great job in implementing discipline to their accredited TNVS through their seminars for both operator & drivers and the rating system which is nonexistent to most, if not all, PUVs which is probably the reason why most, if not all, PUV drivers are undisciplined (pasaway). Hey, LTFRB people, wake up to this reality: TNCs are better in terms of implementation of discipline and public safety. The riding public, including me, can attest to the fact that we feel good everytime we get an UBER/GRAB ride, instead of any PUVs, in general. This means that “markings” are irrelevant at all for whatever reason you might say.

They are slowly turning Uber into public transportation. Private citizens na nga nagmamalasakit para sa ikauunlad ng transportation, and yet… CRAB MENTALITY ang government!!! It’s supposed to be private vehicles for the use of public through apps. I will never put my brand new car which I use privately just so LTFRB can put their useless numbers on it. It’s totally not an option. Iniingatan nga wag magasgasan tapos bababuyin naman. NO WAY!!!

where in the world are uber vehicles required to do so? LTFRB is out of this world. these are by nature private vehicles on ride-sharing arrangements when not in use by owners. if not used for uber, and the owner uses it for personal trips, it is awkward to have such markings. as compromise, uber should convince LTFRB that temporary and removable markers be displayed only during uber trips.

there is no point of continuing Uber if this is implemented! we are not taxi. we are sharing our vehicle and they want us to label my car?! stupid people seating in the government.. no dofference from the stupid chairman of NAIA

This makes Uber tacky and less appealing to the public who wants a discrete “taxi” ride. More importantly, uber partners are driving their private cars, so why put stickers or even cheap laminates on them? I am driving an Uber black vehicle and I will NEVER put anything on my vehicle to make it look like a taxi. It just takes out the class out of Uber.

Hi Uber, putting those markers outside the vehicle would be a big disadvantage for us partners. Imagine people who are not familiar with the app based transport sharing system and try to flag you down but will not stop at them to take them and because they see those markings outside your vehicle and report you to the LTFRB as a PUV that ignores passenger/s especially during rush hours. This could easily be a good reason for LTFRB to revoke our license/permit to operate once they have accumulated a number of reports from unknowing passengers of the way we operate. What is your take on this? Thanks

Totally agree.
There are sooooooo many reasons why this is a BAD idea.
My passengers have told me they don’t want to drive in a vehicle that has any kind of marketing on it.
This is one of the main reasons they use Uber because they can ride in some beautiful vehicles “inconspicuous”

I have been an uber rider for a year and a half already. I totally disagree with having ltfrb markings on uber cars or any marking at all other than license plates and lto stickers. I use uber because it’s almost like riding a private car not a commuter vehicle. Having no markings on cars separate uber from taxi cabs. How will they be any different? It defeats the very sense of your tag line “everyone’s private driver” and “arrive in style.”

Why can’t uber come up with something else that won’t sacrifice the very reason they have the most number of clientele?

Hi Christine, UberMNLTips is a 3rd party blog. We are fellow partners, Drivers, and riders who tirelessly bring you relevant, reliable and accurate information you don’t get anywhere else. That’s why we’re asking for your opinion because we’re looking at appealing these to LTFRB. We wish Uber and Grab would weigh in on the matter. But in case they don’t, we’re doing something and we hope you help us so we can continue to help fellow Partners.

Having marks inside or outside – be they removable or not is the biggest JOKE this great agency can do. It’s 2015. What’s in the markings? Hotlines of the agencies that do not respond or may respond but would take forever?

Uber simply has to argue how riding with Uber is done if any from LTFRB hasn’t tried Uber yet. You have the driver details, plate number of the vehicle, contact info of the driver, and on the electronic receipt, you’d have the business name of the operator. All Uber needs to propose is to include the hotlines of these *bs# agencies. Period!

For those who are creating these memos or orders, Uber needs to provide them free credits for COMMON SENSE.

Di kaya nagkamali ang uber sa pag allow ng operators with huge number of cars under them? As in as many as 200 na vios (alam nyo na kung sino yun) under 1 operator ? Kasi hindi na yun Personal car na nag share ng ride. it’s totally off the original concept of ride sharing. If there were 10,000 car owners with just one car each to share, siguro hindi yun pwede pakialaman ng LTFRB? At siguro mas lalong di pwede pakialaman ng LTFRB kung hindi nag open ng office dito sa Manila ang uber? If it were simply a Web- based car sharing scheme, LTFRB would not have suddenly found it their obligation to protect the riding public by “regulating” (kuno) the new uber transport scheme.

I totally agree with you Fred, I really believe that Uber was to shake the antiquated, monopolistic and boundary based schemes transport industry. That is why there are numerous complains regarding too many smart drivers who are “utak taxi”, The essence of ridedsharing has not been met here. See my comment “pappi jt on November 17, 2015 at 2:00 am” . I even gave up my day job as a Programmer last 2014 because the add was “Do you own a car? want to earn EXTRA…”
was supposed to be Your Car You Drive..

Uber is designed originally to be a limousine service. The concept is its a hired personal vehicle only for a defined period of time. Globally that’s the Uber concept and that is the international standard. Why do we have to veer from that. Might as well remove Uber as a service if you change the concept to a taxi.

It will defeat the purpose of why riders want to ride Uber. The privacy, the discretion as though its your own vehicle. What is the difference anyway if its LTRFB marked or not? There is no VALUE add that that agency provided for riders and drivers the like. Hold ups still happen, kidnapping likewise still happen. It’s just showing how the Philippines is unable to adapt to the fast evolving market. Its short of saying, “Lets go counter-progressive and still operate using land lines as contact centers for complaints (expecting to be “after the fact” should incidences happen.”” Its so reactive rather than preventive. Halatang pinipilit lang sarili nila in a fast moving industry.

DISCLAIMER

UBER MNL Tips is your guide to the basics you need to know about UBER Manila. We'll give you tips and tricks so you get the best Uber experience. This blog is made by fellow riders and avid fans of the disruptive innovation that is Uber. We want to spread awareness and share its awesomeness with other riders.
This blog is not affiliated in any way with Uber. No misrepresentation intended.